Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:13 AM - RG-316 v RG-400 (Christopher Cee Stone)
2. 09:49 AM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Charlie England)
3. 10:29 AM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Christopher Cee Stone)
4. 10:43 AM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Rob Turk)
5. 10:58 AM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Matthew S. Whiting)
6. 11:06 AM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Christopher Cee Stone)
7. 12:15 PM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Rob Turk)
8. 01:20 PM - Re: Re: CHT/EGT connectors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 01:35 PM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Christopher Cee Stone)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Looking at the specs for antenna coax the RG-316 v RG-400, the RG-316
performs as well as RG-400 for the short runs and RF frequencies used in
our OBAM aircraft. The RG-316 is 1/4 the weight/ft as RG-400.
Mechnicaly the RG-316 uses the same insulation materials and same braided
shield as the RG-400.
Is there something I am missing as to why I wouldn't use RG-316?
Chris Stone
Another RV
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RG-316 v RG-400 |
Assuming the same RF specs (including power handling, if talking about
transponder use; did you check that?), the biggest issue might be emergency
access to connectors & tools to repair it. The tiny diameter would
certainly make running it easier in certain situations.
Charlie
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:16=AFAM Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator@gm
ail.com>
wrote:
> Looking at the specs for antenna coax the RG-316 v RG-400, the RG-316
> performs as well as RG-400 for the short runs and RF frequencies used in
> our OBAM aircraft. The RG-316 is 1/4 the weight/ft as RG-400.
> Mechnicaly the RG-316 uses the same insulation materials and same braide
d
> shield as the RG-400.
> Is there something I am missing as to why I wouldn't use RG-316?
>
> Chris Stone
> Another RV
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RG-316 v RG-400 |
RG-316: Max power at 1.05 GHz is 125 Watts (I am using RG-400 for
Xponder). ~350 Watts max power at comm frequencies. Attenuation at 0.15
Ghz (nominally comm freq) 0.096 db/ft (RG-400 @ .30 Ghz is 0.073 db/ft)
RG-400 doesn't list attenuation below 300 Mhz). Nominal capacitance is
almost identical, 97 v. 94 pf/m.
Spec wise it looks good. Long runs to wingtip antennas save about 4 lb
over RG-400.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 9:51=AFAM Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.c
om>
wrote:
> Assuming the same RF specs (including power handling, if talking about
> transponder use; did you check that?), the biggest issue might be emergen
cy
> access to connectors & tools to repair it. The tiny diameter would
> certainly make running it easier in certain situations.
>
> Charlie
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:16=AFAM Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator@
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the specs for antenna coax the RG-316 v RG-400, the RG-316
>> performs as well as RG-400 for the short runs and RF frequencies used in
>> our OBAM aircraft. The RG-316 is 1/4 the weight/ft as RG-400.
>> Mechnicaly the RG-316 uses the same insulation materials and same
>> braided shield as the RG-400.
>> Is there something I am missing as to why I wouldn't use RG-316?
>>
>> Chris Stone
>> Another RV
>>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RG-316 v RG-400 |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Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RG-316 v RG-400 |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RG-316 v RG-400 |
Huber+Suhner(Mouser) lists weights as
RG-400 6.4 kg/100m
RG-316 1.6 kg/100m
RG-400 is 4x the weight of RG-316
I would hope that the weight of cable is consistent between manufacturers.
...chris
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:46=AFAM Rob Turk <matronics@rtist.nl> wrot
e:
> You may want to double-check those weight claims. I've read 5 sheets for
> RG-316 and they all claim some other weight.
>
> On 12/13/2023 7:28 PM, Christopher Cee Stone wrote:
>
> RG-316: Max power at 1.05 GHz is 125 Watts (I am using RG-400 for
> Xponder). ~350 Watts max power at comm frequencies. Attenuation at 0.15
> Ghz (nominally comm freq) 0.096 db/ft (RG-400 @ .30 Ghz is 0.073 db/ft)
> RG-400 doesn't list attenuation below 300 Mhz). Nominal capacitance is
> almost identical, 97 v. 94 pf/m.
>
> Spec wise it looks good. Long runs to wingtip antennas save about 4 lb
> over RG-400.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 9:51=AFAM Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail
.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Assuming the same RF specs (including power handling, if talking about
>> transponder use; did you check that?), the biggest issue might be emerge
ncy
>> access to connectors & tools to repair it. The tiny diameter would
>> certainly make running it easier in certain situations.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:16=AFAM Christopher Cee Stone <
>> rv8iator@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at the specs for antenna coax the RG-316 v RG-400, the RG-316
>>> performs as well as RG-400 for the short runs and RF frequencies used i
n
>>> our OBAM aircraft. The RG-316 is 1/4 the weight/ft as RG-400.
>>> Mechnicaly the RG-316 uses the same insulation materials and same
>>> braided shield as the RG-400.
>>> Is there something I am missing as to why I wouldn't use RG-316?
>>>
>>> Chris Stone
>>> Another RV
>>>
>>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RG-316 v RG-400 |
You are right, it's indeed 1/4th the weight. I guess I looked at the
wrong sheets.
The attenuation is quite a bit different though. You lose half of your
signal for every 3dB.
I'm looking at Allied Wire & Cable:
https://www.awcwire.com/rg-catalog/rg316-coax-cable
https://www.awcwire.com/rg-catalog/rg400-coax-cable
The PDFs list the attenuation at 100MHz to be 4.5 - 4.5dB /100ft for
RG400 and 7.8-11.0 dB/100ft for RG316. Comm is 118-136MHz so a bit more
attenuation for both types. With short runs this may be acceptable.
For transponder use (1080MHz) the table lists up to 18 dB/100ft for
RG400 and up to 38(!)dB/100ft for RG-316. That is substantial,
Rob
On 12/13/2023 8:06 PM, Christopher Cee Stone wrote:
> Huber+Suhner(Mouser) lists weights as
> RG-400 6.4 kg/100m
> RG-316 1.6 kg/100m
>
> RG-400 is 4x the weight of RG-316
>
> I would hope that the weight of cable is consistent between manufacturers.
>
> ...chris
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CHT/EGT connectors |
At 09:27 AM 12/10/2023, you wrote:
>
>This is on my Experimental. I have no idea what brand of PIDG Alcor
>used. The ones I purchased look identical. The A/P said these
>connectors are used on all new planes.
>
Forgive me . . . 'PIDG' is a trademark of
AMP, Inc., a legacy manufacturer of wire
termination products going back nearly
100 years. It stands for "PreInsulated
Diamond Grip" . . . a reference to the
3-piece, wire grip feature of this class
of terminal. In fact, dozens of companies
manufacture equivalent devices conforming
to military specification MIL-T-7928.
'PIDG' has become the common name for the
technology sorta like 'XEROX'. It
represents the-best-we-know-how-to-do
in mating a wire with a variety of terminations.
The way you can tell a true PIDG device
from knock-offs is the existence of
a copper sleeve over the wire grip and
under the insulation grip as shown in
the attached illustration.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
In the interest of creative evolution
of the-best-we-know-how-to-do based
on physics and good practice.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RG-316 v RG-400 |
Rob...
All good points and I appreciate your confirmation and critique.
Xponder and GPS RG-400, Comm & Nav radios RG-316.
I am on a weight diet... trying to keep unnecessary weight gain from
getting away from target weight.
I have all the dies for crimping RG-316 as it is nominally the same
dimensions as RG-174.
...chris
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:18=AFPM Rob Turk <matronics@rtist.nl> wrot
e:
>
> You are right, it's indeed 1/4th the weight. I guess I looked at the
> wrong sheets.
>
> The attenuation is quite a bit different though. You lose half of your
> signal for every 3dB.
> I'm looking at Allied Wire & Cable:
> https://www.awcwire.com/rg-catalog/rg316-coax-cable
> https://www.awcwire.com/rg-catalog/rg400-coax-cable
>
> The PDFs list the attenuation at 100MHz to be 4.5 - 4.5dB /100ft for
> RG400 and 7.8-11.0 dB/100ft for RG316. Comm is 118-136MHz so a bit more
> attenuation for both types. With short runs this may be acceptable.
>
> For transponder use (1080MHz) the table lists up to 18 dB/100ft for
> RG400 and up to 38(!)dB/100ft for RG-316. That is substantial,
>
> Rob
>
> On 12/13/2023 8:06 PM, Christopher Cee Stone wrote:
> > Huber+Suhner(Mouser) lists weights as
> > RG-400 6.4 kg/100m
> > RG-316 1.6 kg/100m
> >
> > RG-400 is 4x the weight of RG-316
> >
> > I would hope that the weight of cable is consistent between
> manufacturers.
> >
> > ...chris
> >
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|